Traffic Ticket Lawyers NYC Vehicle Homicide Defense

The client was operating her sedan within the posted speed limit in Queens when an elderly pedestrian unexpectedly entered the roadway from between parked cars.

The driver applied her brakes immediately, but the vehicle failed to stop in time to avoid the collision.

The Queens District Attorney Office alleged that the client operated the vehicle with knowledge of defective equipment. 

Specifically, the prosecution claimed the braking system was faulty and that operating the vehicle in such a condition constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care required of a reasonable driver.

The primary charge filed against the client was Criminally Negligent Homicide under New York Penal Law Section 125.10.

This statute imposes criminal liability when a person causes the death of another person through criminal negligence. 

Additionally, the client faced potential lesser included charges under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1212 for Reckless Driving. 

The prosecution argued that the failure to maintain the brakes created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.

Under New York Penal Law Section 15.05, criminal negligence involves a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

In the context of mechanical failure, the law requires proof that the driver knew or should have known about the defect. 

A mere mechanical malfunction does not automatically equal criminal liability. 

The defense needed to establish that the driver acted reasonably and had no prior knowledge of the impending brake failure.

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375 mandates that every motor vehicle be equipped with adequate brakes. 

While a violation of this section is typically a traffic infraction, it becomes a central element in a homicide prosecution when identified as the cause of death.

The legal defense focused on the distinction between a strict liability equipment violation and the mens rea required for a criminal homicide conviction.

Defense counsel presented documentary evidence showing that the client had taken her vehicle to a licensed New York State repair shop shortly before the accident. 

The invoice detailed a full inspection and specific repairs to the braking system. 

This evidence was crucial in demonstrating that the client acted as a responsible vehicle owner. 

By hiring a professional mechanic to fix the brakes, she demonstrated a proactive regard for safety rather than negligence.

The defense called an automotive forensic expert to testify regarding the nature of the brake failure.

The expert explained that the mechanical failure was sudden and catastrophic, originating from a defect that a layperson could not have detected after a professional repair.

This testimony directly countered the prosecution argument that the driver knowingly operated an unsafe vehicle.

The defense argued that reliance on a professional mechanic negates the element of blameworthiness required for a criminal conviction under New York law.

The court examined whether the actions of the client constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care.

Based on the evidence of recent repairs, the court determined that the client had no reason to suspect her brakes would fail. 

Consequently, she did not fail to perceive a risk that she had actively sought to prevent.

The evidence negated the necessary mental state required for Criminally Negligent Homicide.

The client was found not guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide and all related criminal charges. 

The court ruled that the mechanical failure was an unforeseen event and not the result of driver negligence.

This acquittal preserved the liberty and driving record of the client.

This case serves as a precedent that proper vehicle maintenance records can provide a complete defense against serious vehicular criminal charges in New York.